The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation

Abstract

A number of studies have shown that students are often more willing to participate in educational conversations online than in the classroom. However, other studies have shown that online environments have poor student participation Why is this the case? What causes participation to vary from one environment to another? To explore these phenomena, we borrow a concept from social psychology, the bystander effect, which explains why individuals are less likely to help in an emergency if others are present. Although the bystander effect specifically applies to helping behavior in emergency situations, we use this construct as a lens through which to view nonemergency situations such as educational environments. The bystander effect has 4 key components: self-awareness, social cues, blocking mechanisms, and diffuse responsibility. Focusing on these mechanisms can help us more fully characterize participation patterns observed in different educational environments and leverage this knowledge in the design of such systems. We present a case study of two students in both classroom and online French learning environments and show how the psychological mechanisms of the bystander effect help us understand observed behavioral changes.

Most Common Formal Grammatical Errors Committed by Authors

“…It could be argued that the statistically non-significant relationship between the total number of different grammatical errors and the number of co-authors is not a positive finding because it might suggest a bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1968;Hudson & Bruckman, 2004;Levine & Thompson, 2004), wherein the presence of multiple co-authors encourages inaction in checking carefully for grammatical errors. Interestingly, surmised that a bystander effect prevails with regard to citation errors, wherein manuscripts written by larger authorship teams contained more citation errors.…”

Using Empirical Data to Reason about Internet Research Ethics

“…A number of research studies have illustrated how various psychological properties induced by online environments cause individuals to act as if public spaces were private (Bassett & O'Riordan, 2002;Binik et al, 1999;Hudson & Bruckman, 2004a;Joinson, 2003;Kiesler et al, 1984;Matheson & Zanna, 1988;Postmes & Spears, 1998;Reid, 1996;Wallace, 1999;Walther, 1996). In analyzing the ethical issues in any chatroom study, one key piece of information to understand is this: Do users of public chatrooms act as if studying them violates their privacy?…”

“…Bruckman, 2002Bruckman, , 2004aNardi et al, 2004;Sproull & Kiesler, 1991;Weisband & Kiesler, 1996). In other words, there is a mismatch between people's (often unspoken) expectations of privacy in computer-mediated environments and the reality of privacy.…”

“…In other words, there is a mismatch between people's (often unspoken) expectations of privacy in computer-mediated environments and the reality of privacy. Research on disinhibition in online environments suggests that aspects of the online environment (e.g., the feelings of anonymity online or the ephemerality of text in chat or the (in)visibility of audience in blogs) may lead to this mismatch in expectations of privacy (Hudson & Bruckman, 2004a;Joinson, 2003;Kiesler et al, 1984;Matheson & Zanna, 1988). Thus, empirical data suggests that the expectation exists, and the medium may encourage it.…”

“…Shy students who would never say anything in a classroom have no problems interacting with the same teachers and classmates in chat environments (Bruce et al, 1993;Hudson & Bruckman, 2002, 2004a. Normally polite people get into vicious flame wars when they go online (Dery, 1993).…”